Let there be light!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375429]

Yes I do know Pierre. He carried out a visual examination. Rigor is detected by physical means, eyelids, jaw and joints are checked to assess the degree of stiffness (N.B. thanks to Steve for the cheat summary!!!).

Good. So no biochemical tests on micro level? No technological, advanced measurements? No regression and factor analysis?

Basically what he was saying was that as Rigor Mortis had set in at 2pm, and Rigor Mortis doesn't set in until at least 6 hours after death, then Kelly must have been murdered at least 6 hours before 2pm (i.e. 8am) but considering the coldness of the body and the partly digested food he estimated time of death at about 12 hours before his examination, i.e. about 1 or 2am.

We already know this.

The problems with his estimate (as we now know in 2016) were threefold:

1. Rigor can set in well before 6 hours after death.

Rigor in 2016 is not rigor in 1888, since it is not measurable and detectable rigor at the same levels.

2. Body temperature doesn't assist in estimating how long a person has been dead so the fact that she was cold couldn't get him to the conclusion that he reached.

He should have had som stuff from 2016, that would have been great for him!

3. People digest food at different rates so he could not properly have concluded that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken (and he didn't know when she last ate food anyway).

Variance is not measured in 2016 as in 1888. We have complex and advanced variance analysis with controls, they had nothing of all this.

So, with his premises being flawed, his conclusion was wrong too. Or, at least, he did not have a reasonable basis to reach that conclusion.

As he would have had with YOUR 2016 premises! All you need now is a time machine to go back an help the poor Dr Bond!

You know what, David? Why don´t we just dismiss the "flawed" sources from the case and ask some 2016 doctor instead? Using all the technology at hand, he/she should be able to tell us the REAL TOD for Kelly!

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375433]

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that if it did not exist for Dr Bond then it didn't exist in reality? I mean, there are historical sources stating that the earth is flat, does that mean the earth was flat at the time those sources were created?

John. You can not "put the sources right" after the sources are produced. There is no "in reality", there is no objective reality valid for all times, there is an historical source, a source from the past.

The reality you are describing did not exist in 1888!

I am an historian and can not apply 2016 biochemical knowledge on a source from 1888. I must let the source kick back. It must be given the chance to be heard as a source in its own right. I was not in the source when it was produced, so my knowledge can not be there.

Of course the earth was not flat, according to what we know now, when the sources stating such a thing were produced. But we must understand that it was flat for them, and that their knowledge was a social construction in the same way our knowledge is a social construction.

How they USED that knowledge is the most important thing to understand if you want to understand the past!

So how did Dr Bond use his knowledge?

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Pierre, I really don't know how to explain to you how badly you are missing the point. You're failure of comprehension is beyond my ability with the English language.

All I can say is that a 2016 doctor wouldn't be much better because we STILL can't estimate time of death properly. We haven't cracked it yet.

The actual detection of the precise moment of the onset of rigor mortis is completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether, once you have detected it visually, this can lead you to an accurate estimate of the time of death.

But because rigor mortis can set in from any time immediately after death to many hours later and remain for up to 48 hours, the fact that Dr Bond detected rigor mortis when he examined MJK's body at 2am could tell him precisely nothing about when she died.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375373]

Just to add some "external source criticism" for David.

Statement of Mary Ann Cox:

"She was still singing, I returned about one oclock she was singing then."

So about one o´clock is with high probability the time when she stopped singing. But since I did not ask about the singing but about light and darkness, there are no "no singing time period" / "singing time period."

[/U]

General side question to everyone.

The tune that Mary is supposed to have been singing, I believe it is "Sweet Violets" but I'm not sure if that is the name, or if it's "I plucked a flower from my mother's grave."...do any of you know if it is a very long song? Say more than three minutes. In the 19th Century, singing was a popular form of entertainment for people among themselves. No radio, few records (and virtually none of music played), nor television, nor movies in 1888. Mary would not have been singing a song if her client told her not to - which to me suggests he knew she sang, and that her voice must have been a pleasant one.

All this may seem petty - maybe it is, but if she sang to "Jack", how long did she take? If it is like other popular songs of the era, it may have been a song with "encores". We might not be talking about four minutes but ten minutes, provided her "john" or her visitor did not bore of her singing after awhile. And suppose she had a repertoire of songs she sang to clients who asked for them? It extends the period she is singing.

Which might interfere with any timetable we set up.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375434][QUOTE=David Orsam;375429]




Rigor in 2016 is not rigor in 1888, since it is not measurable and detectable rigor at the same levels.

Actually it is the same.

It is detected on the autopsy table or at the crime scene by the same method now as in 1888.

the onset time is the same, the Time to maximum degree is the same , they have not changed.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375231]

Yes, there is evidence. But the problem is that you say "definitive" evidence. Historians usually do not speak in terms of "definitive" evidence when researching complex historical questions. For simple things like: "What year did X become king?" it is a completely different issue.

So you can not apply the "definitive" as a concept on a complex historical question. And you can certainly NOT treat this issue as a matter or "forensical definitive evidence" from a 2016 point of view, since the sources we have are sources from the past, from 1888, and sources from the past must be historically analysed and interpreted.

So you will never, ever have "definitive evidence" in the meaning of forensic material like DNA, for example. And that is only one reason why Russell Edwards failed. And if you can not live with it, you should NOT study the case at all.

But the good news is, we DO have very good possibilities for giving HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, that is, evidence based on source criticism.

And this gives us the possibility of reaching a reliable and valid interpretation, and this interpretation will give you a coherent history, based on well researched sources.



It is OK if you call the statements of Abberline "speculations" - but it is not OK if you do not explain why you define them as "speculations", since Abberline was under oath:

Did he speculate, being under oath? This is what you say. So why do you say that?



Good. The size of the fire is of no importance at all. It could be called a "small fire", "normal fire", "a fire" or "a rather large fire".

The hypothesis I have chosen (an active choice made from analysing the data) is the same:

The fire was lit after the murder.

History does not present itself as "Hello, I am History. Definitive and Evidential.". History is a social construction of sources from the past. It is a scientific construction made by social agents, based on sources, source criticism, analyse and interpretation.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre,

I said Abberline speculated because there is no evidence from a witness or from the ashes that states empiracally that the fireplace held a large fire....as he characterized it. Abberline guessed, as he guessed that it was also needed for light to work by.

The fire was out by 1:30...the room was dark and quiet reported by 2 sources who had views of the rooms exterior. Which would suggest that if the fire was started again, something which I dont see any reason to assume ...but whatever, ... after the murder, the murderer was risking exposing his activtities to anyone who might pass by the room land see light through the window later that night. One peek through the window would reveal all.

If the fire was low and untended after the lights went out and Mary stopped singing...between 1 and 1:30am, then throwing items on it later that night might only get partially consumed due to the low heat...which in fact was the case with the items found in the ashes.

So it would appear that unless Mary threw the items left from Marias laundry on the fire herself before going to bed, something that makes no sense, then whoever threw them on the ashes did so when the fire was low and not giving off much heat.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375438][QUOTE=Pierre;375434]

Rigor in 2016 is not rigor in 1888, since it is not measurable and detectable rigor at the same levels.

Actually it is the same.

It is detected on the autopsy table or at the crime scene by the same method now as in 1888.

the onset time is the same, the Time to maximum degree is the same , they have not changed.

Steve

"Rigor mortis" is a scientifically constructed concept. It has been conceptualized in many different ways over time. It has been given different operational definitions and many different methods have been used to describe the concept. They are not the same. So the concept is not the same. It is a socially constructed concept. If you have asked Dr Bond about it, his answer would not be the same as if you would ask a scientist from 2016.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Part of your reply to John was:

"I must let the source kick back. It must be given the chance to be heard as a source in its own right. I was not in the source when it was produced, so my knowledge can not be there".

Pierre

It does not matter when the source is from, if it is demonstrable wrong, it is wrong, and any conclusions drawn from it are equally likely to be wrong.

steve

[David Orsam]

"Rigor mortis" is a scientifically constructed concept. It has been conceptualized in many different ways over time. It has been given different operational definitions and many different methods have been used to describe the concept. They are not the same. So the concept is not the same. It is a socially constructed concept. If you have asked Dr Bond about it, his answer would not be the same as if you would ask a scientist from 2016.

None of this matters Pierre. The only point of importance is whether, on noting the onset of rigor mortis at 2pm, Dr Bond could reasonably say that Kelly couldn't have been murdered before 8am.

We now know that he couldn't reasonably say it because rigor mortis can start earlier than six hours after death.

It really is THAT SIMPLE.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;375437]

Just to add some "external source criticism" for David.

Statement of Mary Ann Cox:

"She was still singing, I returned about one oclock she was singing then."

So about one o´clock is with high probability the time when she stopped singing. But since I did not ask about the singing but about light and darkness, there are no "no singing time period" / "singing time period."

[/U]

General side question to everyone.

The tune that Mary is supposed to have been singing, I believe it is "Sweet Violets" but I'm not sure if that is the name, or if it's "I plucked a flower from my mother's grave."...do any of you know if it is a very long song? Say more than three minutes. In the 19th Century, singing was a popular form of entertainment for people among themselves. No radio, few records (and virtually none of music played), nor television, nor movies in 1888. Mary would not have been singing a song if her client told her not to - which to me suggests he knew she sang, and that her voice must have been a pleasant one.

All this may seem petty - maybe it is, but if she sang to "Jack", how long did she take? If it is like other popular songs of the era, it may have been a song with "encores". We might not be talking about four minutes but ten minutes, provided her "john" or her visitor did not bore of her singing after awhile. And suppose she had a repertoire of songs she sang to clients who asked for them? It extends the period she is singing.

Which might interfere with any timetable we set up.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Good point. It is possible to construct a "singing period" from twelve to one o´clock that night from the statements of Cox. It is not possible to say if the singing lasted during the whole period, but it was heard by Cow from midnight and at about one o´clock.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Jeff,

Good point. It is possible to construct a "singing period" from twelve to one o´clock that night from the statements of Cox. It is not possible to say if the singing lasted during the whole period, but it was heard by Cow from midnight and at about one o´clock.

Kind regards, Pierre

As far as I can tell, Pierre, you still haven't explained why Prater heard no singing at 1am yet Mrs Cox did hear singing at 1am.

[Pierre]

As far as I can tell, Pierre, you still haven't explained why Prater heard no singing at 1am yet Mrs Cox did hear singing at 1am.

Sure. Prater said she went in 01.30 and that she spoke with McCarthy before she went in.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375440][QUOTE=Elamarna;375438]

"Rigor mortis" is a scientifically constructed concept. It has been conceptualized in many different ways over time. It has been given different operational definitions and many different methods have been used to describe the concept. They are not the same. So the concept is not the same. It is a socially constructed concept. If you have asked Dr Bond about it, his answer would not be the same as if you would ask a scientist from 2016.

Regards, Pierre

Actually I think Bonds answer would be very similar to a Doctor from today it is you, whom are portraying him as having a different prospective on it.

he himself says:

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination.
From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."


The time for onset still varies from Body to Body and is largely dependent on the ambient temperature the body is in at death.

Your point about it being a "scientifically constructed concept" is unimportant and irrelevant,

it is a process that occurs after death, that process has NOT changed.



Steve

[David Orsam]

Sure. Prater said she went in 01.30 and that she spoke with McCarthy before she went in.

Perhaps you should look again at the actual evidence Pierre.

Prater said that she went out at about 9pm and returned about 1am, "and stood at the bottom of Millers Court until about 1.30."

This enabled her to say that: "From 1am to 1.30am no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them".

At the inquest, she said again that she returned home at about 1am at which time "I stood at the corner by Mr McCarthys shop till about 20 minutes past 1 I spoke to no one". She then said, "I went up to my room" adding, "I went in about 1.30". That's when she put two tables against the door.

She also said:

"I went to bed at half past one - I did not hear any singing. - I should have heard anyone singing in the deceaseds room at 1 oclock, there was no singing."

So she was back at 1am, hung around the corner of Millers Court until about 1.20 then went to her room and went to bed at 1.30. She heard no singing but said she would have heard singing had there been any.

So how did Mary Ann Cox hear Mary Jane singing at that time?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That's fine Pierre, but rigor can set in almost immediately after death, certainly within 30 minutes of death.

That's what Dr Bond didn't know.

Rigor Mortis starts +/- 2 hours after death, earlier if it's warmer, starting with smaller muscles (face, neck). The whole duration process takes 8 to 12 hours and can last up to 18 hours.